Otherwise and in general, progress and true equality take time. Few women worldwide even had the right to vote until last century. In some countries they still cannot, and in a few, women aren't even permitted to drive a car. But at least in the "western world", barriers of all kinds (gender, racial, orientation) are steadily disintegrating.

But seriously, you could have said the same thing about a minority president before Obama or a Catholic president before Kennedy. Things take time to deviate from what has always been.

Also not many truly qualified women have really made a serious attempt to get a major party nomination. Hillary has a shot in 2016 although I think her health issues may hinder her. I have a feeling they are more serious than we are being led to believe. If not Hillary, I really believe there will be a woman president in the not too distant future, maybe by 2024.

They're delaying Hillary so they know she's done with menopause. Imagine a PMSing angry woman with a nuke button. I say let men rule. We have shown through history that we're reliable, consistent, truthful and calm....

Joined: 8/1/2012Posts: 4,717Location: The Dark Corners of My Mind..., United States

Because we need a woman candidate that people can believe in, and not one who's so politically driven we can't trust. Hence why Hillary didn't get the nomination in 2008. I'm sure we'll see a woman president soon enough, once the old men who run the respective parties stop panicking when a woman refuses to take a seat in the "back." A woman who's willing to put up with their , call them on their , and still maintain her beliefs in putting the counties needs first.

I mean... the Congress is still pissing & moaning about Roe v. Wade & they had a hissy fit over giving women birth control. REALLY?!? How about the economy? Jobs? Defense? These are the real issues... not if a woman can have an abortion or get her birth control pills paid for (which is so much more than pregnancy prevention!)

It will happen. My dad never thought he'd see a black man as president in his lifetime, and he did. So why can't a woman be president? The constitution doesn't forbid it, so it's just finding the right woman.

They're delaying Hillary so they know she's done with menopause. Imagine a PMSing angry woman with a nuke button. I say let men rule. We have shown through history that we're reliable, consistent, truthful and calm....

reliable, I can rely on them to vote themself a raise as our country is in economic distress.consistent, Consistantly grid locked never making any useful changestruthful, Their politicians, if there lips move their lieing. The one you trust is just the better liar.calm, Have you ever watched a session of congress.

NymphWriter wrote:

... once the old men who run the respective parties stop panicking when a woman refuses to take a seat in the "back." A woman who's willing to put up with their , call them on their , and still maintain her beliefs in putting the counties needs first.

NymphWriter I'm starting to like your posts... I hate to say it we will have to wait until all the bastards die.

Right now I'm thinking you and Sprite should run on the same ticket...

Germany has shown that women can get elected to run a major country, I guess the right woman hasn't come along yet. Although I wouldn't be surprised, as others said previously, when Hilary will get nominated in the near future.

I was not a Hillary fan in 2008...I felt she was a bit "brassy" for the top job. I DID feel she was the IDEAL CHOICE for Sec. of State and has done a fabulous job. Shae has truly poured her heart and soul into that job. I could NOW enthusiastically support her for President for she is truly a well rounded person for that job. Gender be damned! I hope her health issues permit her to consider/run for the job.

When both parties want power, don't want the other party to have power, you get gridlock.(maybe a third party...the Lush Party....)

Okay actually my wife would make a good president. That would let me be the first hubby! Awesome!

gpown wrote:

why no ginger male US president yet?why no Asian-descendant US president yet?

You know I always wondered why Tiger woods is considered an African American golfer, and not an Asian American golfer. His mother was asian.... okay just a matter of perspective that bothers me. He broke two barriers at once but doesn't get credit for both.

Joined: 4/30/2012Posts: 329Location: under bright lights, United States

Hillary would have been president with slick willie as first man if not for the Barack Obama surge from out of nowhere. Ms. Clinton would have had as hard a time with an obstructionist congress as what President Obama has encountered or worse, but should she decide to run she would make a strong leader as there is no one in government with more practical know how and with the GOP splintered her chances to shatter the glass ceiling are very good.

Germany has shown that women can get elected to run a major country, I guess the right woman hasn't come along yet. Although I wouldn't be surprised, as others said previously, when Hilary will get nominated in the near future.

I thought the discussion was focused on US President as a woman.Otherwise I believe India was the first to elect Indira Gandhi as its Chief Exective (Prime Minister).Sri Lanka elected mrs Bandranaike as its Prime Minister soon.Similarly Turkey had a female Prime Minister too.United Kingdom also had Mrs Thacher as Prime Minister and was popularly known as Iron Lady.Women as Chief Executives of many important countries have shown their competence, but US has yet to provide oppurtunity to any woman.

reliable, I can rely on them to vote themself a raise as our country is in economic distress.consistent, Consistantly grid locked never making any useful changestruthful, Their politicians, if there lips move their lieing. The one you trust is just the better liar.calm, Have you ever watched a session of congress.

Now Grog go teach Phoenix about sarcasm and irony. Grog realise this might be tough. Grog relentless. Grog make big effort for tribe....

What do Golda Meir(Israel), Indira Gandhi(India) and Margaret Thatcther(Great Britain) have in common?They were all heads of state and led their countries into war (with Egypt, Pakistan and Argentina respectfully)

It's because it's a male dominate role. Women have been trying to become president since Geraldine Ferraro was the first woman to run back in the 80s. I think we need a woman president because it will be a different point of view from the female perspective.

What do Golda Meir(Israel), Indira Gandhi(India) and Margaret Thatcther(Great Britain) have in common?They were all heads of state and led their countries into war (with Egypt, Pakistan and Argentina respectfully)

The trouble with politicians is that they are politicians first...

So you think Maggie Thatcher should just have sat back and watched Argentina invade a part of Britain where a vast majority of the population want to stay under British rule?

What do Golda Meir(Israel), Indira Gandhi(India) and Margaret Thatcther(Great Britain) have in common?They were all heads of state and led their countries into war (with Egypt, Pakistan and Argentina respectfully)

The trouble with politicians is that they are politicians first...

I'm not Israeli, nor Indian, nor British, but if I were any of the three I would take offense from this comment.

Regardless the historical justification for the very existence of Israel in the way it was created, a mere study of 8th grade history will show that all three nations replied to an external hostile provocation, if not outright attack, from other sovereign nations. As in, got kicked in the arse.Considering that no nation, not one, invokes the principle of "turn thy other cheek" in their XConstitution, and that they are all entitled to invoke the right to self defense...... what other reaction would you have suggested ? "Parlay" in "Pirates of the caribbean" style ? Unlikely. Once they take your land and guard it with heavily armed forces, there's only two ways to get it back, money or more forces, in turn more heavily armed.On the other hand, we could recall Queen Elizabeth I of England, who successfully defended from Spain (Invincible Armada) or Eleanor of Aquitaine, or Eleanor of Arborea...

I'm not Israeli, nor Indian, nor British, but if I were any of the three I would take offense from this comment.

Regardless the historical justification for the very existence of Israel in the way it was created, a mere study of 8th grade history will show that all three nations replied to an external hostile provocation, if not outright attack, from other sovereign nations. As in, got kicked in the arse.Considering that no nation, not one, invokes the principle of "turn thy other cheek" in their XConstitution, and that they are all entitled to invoke the right to self defense...... what other reaction would you have suggested ? "Parlay" in "Pirates of the caribbean" style ? Unlikely. Once they take your land and guard it with heavily armed forces, there's only two ways to get it back, money or more forces, in turn more heavily armed.On the other hand, we could recall Queen Elizabeth I of England, who successfully defended from Spain (Invincible Armada) or Eleanor of Aquitaine, or Eleanor of Arborea...

Fair points all. No insult was intended to these nations or women. First, yes we need more women in politics and probably less lawyers and millionaires. My rather vaguely made point was to provoke thought, that the election of women won't automatically make the world a kinder gentler place although the possibility is certainly there. Far too often, politicians, male and female, govern to be re-elected rather than doing the right thing. You are correct that these were in response to aggression (and arguably the right thing) and my examples probably over-dramatic. I'd be the first to agree that their are some amazing examples of female leadership throughout history and in modern times...

The US needs a female candidate that men can relate with. Someone like Hilary won't stand a chance because she looks and acts like a man, but isn't. Sarah Palin is probably a closer fit to what the candidate should be like. Former athlete, cute and charming. Unfortunately for Palin, she crumbled under the scrutiny and ultimately was too conservative for most Americans.

I'm not saying this is right or how I would vote, just what I observe."I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set her free." -Michelangelo

Mainly because the men in this country live in the dark ages where their only job should be in the home. It's thinking like that which leaves our country with a dark mark, if most men would vote for a woman it probaly would be a Miss America, based only on looks not her ideas. We have had many women in goverment who have had the moxy to better our country.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.